I'm a big fan of January, as a rule. New Year, new start, shiny new stationery, a sense of starting afresh.

But in recent years my enjoyment of this austere, clear-skies-and-frost month of renewal has been ruined, mostly by social media. Let me explain.

Here are some things I am trying to do in January: drink a little less; eat more vegetarian meals; increase my running miles, do one thing at a time (aka step away from the smartphone).

Here are some things I am absolutely NOT doing in January: #dryathlon, #cleaneating, #skinny anything, #digitaldetox or anything that includes the world #fitspo.

I will not be going gluten-free because it's better for me (it's not.) Or giving up dairy for the sake of my health (no evidence, unless you're genuinely allergic).

I will not be joining the joyless clean eating brigade (with the utmost respect to all the lovely people I know who buy into it) or shelling out £1.99 for one 'energy ball' with as much sugar in it as a bag of Malteasers. (Eat them because they taste nice, fine. But don't eat them with impunity. Sugar is sugar and your body treats it all exactly the same way.)

Because none of it's rocket science, is it?

You want to live well and feel good? Don't drink too much, eat a balanced diet, get some exercise, preferably every day. Talk to the people you live with instead of spending your life on Twitter. Don't spend your energy and money on fads.

I know I sound like I'm a ranting killjoy, and you know, what's wrong with people wanting to be healthier? But it's the associated industry that comes with it that I hate - the diet gurus, the posh girls with shiny hair making dodgy health claims based on anecdotes not evidence, the overpriced dates dressed up as healthy snacks, the sheer make-you-feel-bad-about-yourself-and-your-body ness of it all. A carbohydrate every now and then doesn't make you dirty. Things you enjoy are not always bad for you. You can eat fewer calories and still have cake. And #courgetti does NOT count as #foodporn

As I drove to work on Monday (leaving my three year old to go to nursery as he does every day of the week) I listened to a discussion on Radio 4 about the gender pay gap, which morphed into an argument about the 'choices women make' once they have children, and how that impacts their career and earning potential. The argument (being made by a woman, of course, so as not to appear sexist) is that women who have children 'don't mind' earning less because they recognise the value of time spent with their children.

But is it really a choice? I believe strongly that it's good for children to see their mothers work, for all sorts of reasons - but also I feel guilty every day about the amount of time my children spend in childcare.

My husband, excellent and equal parent that he is, doesn't feel the same guilt - because there is no societal expectation that he be at home on a working day. And that's the problem. If a couple wants their child to have more time at home with a parent, it will almost always be the woman who reduces her hours - maybe because she carries the idea that it's a woman's job. Maybe because employers are more likely to say yes to woman who wants to go part time than a man. Maybe because the man doesn't feel strongly enough about it to take the career knock-back he thinks it would involve. In our current culture, part-time work often isn't seen as 'real work'. Managers don't, as a rule, work part time. Most companies aren't set up to mitigate for a parent who wants to work four days a week instead of five.

So I've got a solution. I've been thinking about an ideal world in which EVERYONE worked nine days a fortnight instead of ten.

Kids would get one day a week at home with mum or dad, and mitigating for that time absent would be built in to our working culture, because it applied across the board. Because until we value the time parents spend with their young children enough to make it part of everyone's working life, women will always suffer from the 'choices they make'.